Ind. State Bd. of Educ. v. Brownsburg Sch.
| Decision Date | 24 February 2006 |
| Docket Number | No. 32A05-0506-CV-317.,32A05-0506-CV-317. |
| Citation | 842 N.E.2d 885 |
| Parties | INDIANA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION, Appellant-Respondent, v. BROWNSBURG COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION, Board of School Trustees, Appellee-Petitioner. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Steve Carter, Attorney General of Indiana, David L. Steiner, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, IN, for Appellant.
George T. Patton, Jr., Buren E. Jones, Bose McKinney & Evans LLP, Indianapolis, IN, for Appellee.
The Indiana State Board of Education ("ISBE") appeals the trial court's denial of its Motion to Correct Errors and Vacate. Specifically, the ISBE contends that because it was unaware that the "preliminary hearing" in the matter would be its one and only chance to argue its case on the merits, the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to vacate its final order. Finding that the ISBE was not afforded the due process guarantees of notice and an opportunity to be heard, we reverse.
On August 4, 2004, Catherine Johnson ("Johnson") met with Kathy Corbin ("Corbin"), superintendent of Brownsburg Community School Corporation ("Brownsburg"), and asked that her sons, Ta. and Tr. ("the students"), be allowed to enroll at Brownsburg on a part-time basis for the 2004-2005 school year—Ta. in band and Tr. in AP calculus and Madrigals.1 Johnson planned to enroll the students mainly in home study correspondence courses, including classes through Brigham Young University. At the time of Johnson's request, Brownsburg had the following policy in place:
The Superintendent or the Board will not grant approval per I.C. 20-8.1-3-17.3(b) for students from non-public, non-accredited, or non-approved schools including home educated students to enroll in less than six (6) credit generating courses unless an [Individualized Education Program] is in effect.2
Appellant's Br. p. 22; Appellant's App. p. 43. Because Johnson's proposed course of home study is not approved by the ISBE and because there was no individualized education program ("I.E.P.") in effect for the students, Corbin denied the requested part-time enrollment.3
The students appealed Corbin's denial of their request for part-time enrollment to the ISBE. On February 3, 2005, the ISBE, relying on the recommendation of the administrative law judge ("ALJ") it had assigned to the case, voted to reverse Corbin's decision and ordered Brownsburg to enroll the students on a part-time basis in the classes in which they sought enrollment. On February 4, Brownsburg filed its Verified Petition for Judicial Review of an Agency Action and Stay of Order Pending Final Determination ("Petition") with the trial court. Attached as exhibits to the Petition were copies of the ISBE ALJ's recommended orders, Brownsburg's objections to those orders, and Brownsburg's published policy on student enrollment. In the Petition, Brownsburg requested a stay of the agency action and an expedited hearing on judicial review of the matter. That same day, the trial court, having determined that a reasonable probability existed that the ISBE's action was invalid or illegal, granted the stay and set the matter for a "preliminary hearing" on February 15. Appellant's App. p. 90. The chronological case summary ("CCS") indicates that the ISBE was served with the summons and petition on February 8 and the Attorney General was served around the same time.4 The answer to the petition was originally due on February 28, but the ISBE asked for and received an extension through March 30.
The preliminary hearing was held as scheduled on February 15. At the beginning of the hearing, when the court asked deputy attorney general Chad Duran ("Duran"), the ISBE's attorney, what the status of the case was, he responded, "The Indiana State Board of Education opposes the stay, uh Your Honor." Tr. p. 7. Later, Duran stated, Id. at 11. The court then asked Buren Jones ("Jones"), Brownsburg's attorney, what "supports you obtaining uh an injunction," and Jones responded, "the court only need find by the petition and the arguments here today that there's a reasonable uh probability that the [ISBE's] order [is] invalid or illegal[.]" Id. at 13.
During his closing, Duran made the following comments:
Ultimately, we have a situation here where we are attempting to harmonize the Indiana State Constitution with the relevant law that Mr. Jones cited. . . . That's the ultimate issue to be decided once this matter is fully briefed it goes through the process. . . . The school corporation is certainly ready willing and able to absorb two additional students into its system on a part time bases [sic] so let's keep the order of the Indiana State Board of Education in place while we determine these important Constitutional issues.
Id. at 20-21 (interjections omitted). In his closing, Jones stated, in pertinent part:
[T]he choice to home school is theirs but with as with [sic] every choice comes consequences and uh because they voluntarily withdrew by granting the stay you're not going to be taking anything away from them that they already have. . . . Alright, if you don't grant the stay, if the court doesn't grant the stay we'll not only have these two [students] but we'll have others that will place a burden on the school. . . . We may have to hire additional staff to teach these children. If we hire additional staff and then we ultimately prevail which we expect that we will, we can't just automatic [sic] fire that additional staff[.]
Id. at 22-23. At the end of the hearing, the trial court invited the parties to submit briefs of 250 words or less, but both declined.
Two days after the hearing, on February 17, the trial court entered its Order After Preliminary Hearing, which provided, in pertinent part:
[I]t is hereby ordered that the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Recommended Order entered by Valerie Hall, Hearing Examiner of the Indiana State Board of Education, on 16 December, 2004, under cases number 0408012B and A are vacated because they are contrary to the clear law set out by our legislature, overbroad, arbitrary and capricious, and an abuse of discretion[.]5
On February 28, Brownsburg filed with the trial court a Notice of Filing of the Agency Record. Attached to this filing was that portion of the agency record that had been provided to Brownsburg by the ISBE as of that date. The filing did not include portions of the record that had been preserved without transcript and delivered to Brownsburg via audio cassette tape and video cassette tape. That same day, the ISBE filed a Motion to Correct Errors and Vacate. The motion stated: "It was counsel's impression that the hearing set for February 15, 2005 was set by the Court to address [Brownsburg's] request to stay the agency order pending final determination[.]" Appellant's App. p. 86-87. The ISBE requested that the trial court
correct errors, vacate its Order entered herein on February 17, 2005, permit the [ISBE] to file an answer and affirmative defenses or other responsive pleading, provide [Brownsburg] with an opportunity to file the original or certified copy of the record of the administrative hearing below, the subject of the instant judicial review, and set a briefing schedule in which all parties are provided with the opportunity to submit dispositive motions and set forth their legal arguments in supporting briefs in which all parties can cite to the administrative record below in support of their position.
The ISBE filed its answer to Brownsburg's Petition on March 10. Then, because the trial court had failed to take any action on the ISBE's Motion to Correct Errors and Vacate within forty-five days, the motion was deemed denied, pursuant to Indiana Rule of Trial Procedure 53.3. On April 18, having received the remaining portions of the record from the ISBE, Brownsburg filed another Notice of Filing of the Agency Record.6 Thereafter, the ISBE filed its notice of appeal from both the trial court's Order After Preliminary Hearing and its denial of ISBE's motion to correct error, and the trial court entered an order indicating that it would take no further action in the case pending this appeal.
The ISBE contends that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to grant the ISBE's motion to correct error. Specifically, the ISBE argues that the trial court should have granted its motion to correct error because it believed that the February 15 hearing concerned the continuation of the previously granted stay and because "the premature decision of the trial court is contrary to the requirements of [the Administrative Orders and Procedures Act] and fundamental notions of due process[.]" Appellant's Br. p. 5. We agree that the requirements of due process were not met in this case.
We begin by clarifying the questions that are not presented by this appeal. We will not address the propriety of (1) the ALJ's disposition of this case or (2) the ISBE's affirmation of the ALJ's decision. Rather, our focus is on whether the ISBE was afforded adequate notice and a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue presented on judicial review. This question comes to us as a denial of a motion to correct error. We review a trial court's decision to deny a motion to correct error for an abuse of discretion, and reversal will only occur when the trial court's decision was against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before it, together with the inferences that can be drawn therefrom. Hockema v. J.S., 832 N.E.2d 537, 541 (Ind.Ct.App.2005), reh'g denied; Martin v. State, 784 N.E.2d 997, 1009 (Ind.Ct.App.2003)...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Melton v. Ind. Athletic Trainers Bd.
...process requires notice, an opportunity to be heard, and an opportunity to confront witnesses. Ind. State Bd. of Educ. v. Brownsburg Cmty. Sch. Corp. , 842 N.E.2d 885, 889 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). The notice must be reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to offer the interested pa......
-
Melton v. Ind. Athletic Trainers Bd.
...opportunity to confront witnesses.” Morton v. Ivacic, 898 N.E.2d 1196, 1199 (Ind.2008) (quoting Ind. State Bd. of Educ. v. Brownsburg Cmty. Sch. Corp., 842 N.E.2d 885, 889 (Ind.Ct.App.2006) ). “The ‘opportunity to be heard’ is a fundamental requirement of due process.” Id. (quoting Mullane ......
-
DBL Axel, LLC v. LaSalle Bank Nat. Ass'n
...to be heard, and an opportunity to confront witnesses."Morton, 898 N.E.2d at 1199 (quoting Ind. State Bd. of Educ. v. Brownsburg Cmty. Sch. Corp., 842 N.E.2d 885, 889 (Ind.Ct.App.2006)). "The 'opportunity to be heard' is a fundamental requirement of due process." Id. (quoting Mullane v. Cen......
-
Health & Hosp. Corp. of Marion Cnty. v. Dickson St. Invs., LLC
...process requires notice, an opportunity to be heard, and an opportunity to confront witnesses.” Ind. State Bd. of Educ. v. Brownsburg Cmt'y. Sch. Corp., 842 N.E.2d 885, 889 (Ind.Ct.App.2006).The trial court made the following findings relevant to the question of whether Bohlsen received the......